2015 Mustang EPA DATA!!!! for most models.... UPDATE 2 ALL MODELS

[Tascam]

It's hard to say. I'm sure they dont think of this backwards like we are doing. Price targets come before they decide how cars will be built, what parts will be used, and how they are optioned.

I have to thnk they had an original plan to sell an EB mustang just above 24k and decided they could make more money by offering the V6 at that price, giving the EB more standard options, and increasing both the EB and GT prices as a result.

I know their public statements spin it as the V6 is there to offer it a better base price than would have existed with only a two engine lineup, but I think thats mostly marketing.

Sponsored

 

[aspensilver]

There is a big increase as far as that's concerned but you have it a little backwards. The V6 is only around to be able to lighten the blow of the higher priced EB, and they can still market the Mustang as the "cheapest" in the market. I don't think it's that they want to charge higher for the EB, IMO it's that they needed to because the costs are higher in that car period.

Having the V6 around allows them to push the EB without the negativity associated with it's cost. What sounds better? "Lowest price of the mustang is $23k w/ a V6 and there's an all new Ecoboost engine available"? or "The mustang now has a new Engine, the all new 2.3 Ecoboost, pricing begins at $25k"? If sales are right I bet the v6 will be gone in a year or two. They might even keep the EB price the same over the next couple years to minimize the blow of losing the sixer. But take this all with a grain of salt as this whole post is very opinionated.

We're saying the same thing, except you are called the EB a 'base' model which I don't think it quite is.

 

[DivineStrike]

It's hard to say. I'm sure they dont think of this backwards like we are doing. Price targets come before they decide how cars will be built, what parts will be used, and how they are optioned.

I have to thnk they had an original plan to sell an EB mustang just above 24k and decided they could make more money by offering the V6 at that price, giving the EB more standard options, and increasing both the EB and GT prices as a result.

I know their public statements spin it as the V6 is there to offer it a better base price than would have existed with only a two engine lineup, but I think thats mostly marketing.

I definitely see your point and that could be very likely. They are a business after all trying to make as much money as they can. And why I think they may keep the EB price stagnant for a couple year till their ready to kill the V6 for good. Make a few extra bucks in the beginning then get rid of the unwanted product with minimal backlash.

We're saying the same thing, except you are called the EB a 'base' model which I don't think it quite is.

It technically isn't in the US as we do have the option to get a V6. But think of it this way. The V6 pre 2015 was available with all the options the V8 had. The only difference now is it's an EB instead of the V6. We didn't have such a bare bones Mustang before like we do with the 2015 V6, so in all intents and purposes the EB is the base. The V6 is only there for marketing the Mustang as a whole. And as Tascam brought up a good point, to possibly increase profit margins by increasing the price point slightly. But this we may never know. Is the EB priced at what it would have been if it were the only other option besides the V8 or would it be lower?

In the rest of the world they only get the EB and V8 so the EB is the base Mustang. In Europe they won't receive the backlash of higher pricing for the Base mustang due to its advantage in less taxes for smaller displacement vs the V8.

I agree with you that we are saying the same thing but I guess my point in saying all this, is I think the EB is really the base mustang because I don't believe they have any intentions on replacing the V6 with yet another vehicle to be the Base model, and they will eventually drop the V6. I personally think it would be cool to have a lower powered mustang with even better mpg's but I just don't know if it would be profitable or how the public would react. The EB could possibly be a feeler for that as well. Once the public gets used to a smaller displacement Mustang would they be more willing to accept an even smaller turbo engine?

 

[wjones14]

Although, I don't know why I don't think of this more often, but it just amazes me the pricing of the new EB vs it's competition. It's mpgs are good in relation to what's out there, has a great base interior and all for 25k. You can barely get a FRS/BRZ for 25k

Compared to the BRZ, the 2015 Mustang EB is a steal! At least on paper...

2015 Subaru BRZ:

MSRP - $26,400
EPA - 22/30
200 horsepower
151 lb-ft torque

2015 Mustang EcoBoost

MSRP - $26,400
EPA - 22/31
310 horsepower
320 lb-ft torque

Granted the weight difference will negate some of the horsepower/torque advantage, but I would still expect the 2015 EB to destroy the BRZ, especially in a straight line. And the weight makes the EB fuel mileage figures even more impressive, considering it beats the smaller, lighter, less powerful BRZ.

 

[aspensilver]

And the weight makes the EB fuel mileage figures even more impressive, considering it beats the smaller, lighter, less powerful BRZ.

The mileage claims only look good because they aren't using much boost in the test, especially just cruising on the HW. I could be wrong, but look at the BRZ on fuelly, I think the EB will end up being lower than the customer averages there. EB uses a lot of boost to get those figures which when used absolutely craters mpg.

-------

Divine -- I think we're just getting into too much semantics about 'base' -- to me its just the cheapest model offered. The idea Ford hopes to make more this way and soften the blow of the price increase and that the V6 eventually be dropped has been discussed for awhile.

 

[WhiteMuscle]

How many miles do you have on your 2005? And agree with you on the fact that it's 2014 and soon a lot of other cars are going to be getting ridiculously good gas mileage. I disagree with everyone making the excuse that "oh it's a sports car, or it's a mustang" yea and? it's not an exotic. It's an everyman's car in a nicely styled package. The ecoboost engine is there to give good performance but also increase the efficiency of it. If the V6 hadn't already been 300hp, they would have introduced a model with less hp and more mpg's. Don't fool yourself into thinking the EB is the performance model. It only happens to be a Base model engine that happens to perform well. It's sole purpose is to be sold to the masses and with that get excellent mpg's. Even though it's being marketed as upscale to the V6, it really is in all reality the base mustang. Because if the auto some how comes out getting 34 realistic hwy mpg's it's going to sell like hotcakes.

130,000 miles. I wouldn't want the base ecoboost or the v6 because they don't offer the navigation system. And have you seen the dashboard where all the instrumentals are? A phonelike-keypad is on there? What the hell? Isn't that from the 90s?

 

[Merle]

2015 Hate List

That's funny. When the rear changed from the 09 to the 10 there was a lot of talk on how they ruined the rear and a lot of people didn't care for it. Now they love it and hate the rear on the 15, give it time....

The 2005-2009 Mustang was never finished in my mind, but Ford DID
finish it on the 2010 Model.
The 15 Things I Hate About The 2015 Mustang.
1. I hate the WHOLE REAR END. I Love 2013-2014 Rear End.
2. Trunk Lid Line Cuts Thru TOP.
3. High Mount Stoplight Sucks.
4. Back Up Light Sucks. Early Pics Showed A Neat Single Lens.
5. Mirrors Look Stupid On Side Of Doors To Me And Mounts Are Fragil.
6. Goodyear Tires Only Last One Good Year. RIDE LIKE CRAP AND NOISY.
7. Base Tire Size is too WIDE (More Noise and Less Milage).
8. Small FONTS in twin stack (Spedo-Tach) are not the FORD FONTS.
9. Cup Holders have no COVER. (UGLY and Space Above Wasted).
10.Do We Need P R N D S in the Twin-Stack And Consol and Shift Knob?
11.Passenger Side of Dash Sucks.
12.Steering Wheel Has TOO MANY BUTTONS BELOW THE SPOKES (OUCH).
13.Wiper Knobs Should Be Where They Were.
14.Will never Use SYNC (UNLESS I CRASH) Others Will TEXT and CRASH
Should be able to delete and save some bucks on Car Order.
15.Turn and Parking Light Lens should have been completed at BOTTOM.

 

[Nitro]

The mileage claims only look good because they aren't using much boost in the test, especially just cruising on the HW. I could be wrong, but look at the BRZ on fuelly, I think the EB will end up being lower than the customer averages there. EB uses a lot of boost to get those figures which when used absolutely craters mpg.

Yep. I drive an FR-S and it gets good gas mileage even when I'm on the gas pedal. It's one of the great things about the twins, you can drive them at 9/10ths on the streets and it's a blast and wont kill your wallet.

 

[stilesg57]

The 2011+ GT and 2015 EB are getting some of the best MPGs in Mustang history...so anything is really an improvement if you're driving something earlier than 2011.

Yep. I think there's a generational thing going on here with all the disappointment over these mpg figures. If you've owned pre-S197 Mustangs before -- regardless of engine -- you know how great these numbers are. Heck, I've driven a friend's late-'80s Fox with a NA 4cyl in it that didn't equal these mpg numbers, and it was so underpowered it couldn't get out of its own way. I'm the slowest, most out-of-shape white guy you'll find and I could've outran that thing to the quarter mile mark. If your first 'Stang was a '11+ V6, your expectations are a little skewed historically

EDIT: I just looked it up, my buddy's late-'80s dd beater pony had just 88hp -- LESS THAN A THIRD of the new EB -- and only got 23/29. It also weighed a ton less, had almost no modern creature comforts, handled like crap, and was much more dangerous if you got in an accident. We live in a new golden age.

Compared to the BRZ, the 2015 Mustang EB is a steal! At least on paper...

2015 Subaru BRZ:

MSRP - $26,400
EPA - 22/30
200 horsepower
151 lb-ft torque

2015 Mustang EcoBoost

MSRP - $26,400
EPA - 22/31
310 horsepower
320 lb-ft torque

Granted the weight difference will negate some of the horsepower/torque advantage, but I would still expect the 2015 EB to destroy the BRZ, especially in a straight line. And the weight makes the EB fuel mileage figures even more impressive, considering it beats the smaller, lighter, less powerful BRZ.

Very good comparison, thanks! Damn: over 50% more HP and over double the tq of the Toyobaru twins with similar mileage. Crazy. It ain't like they weigh half or even two-thirds of what the EB Mustang does. I love Subaru, but.... :ford:

 

[jeebuspwnz]

Compared to the BRZ, the 2015 Mustang EB is a steal! At least on paper...

2015 Subaru BRZ:

MSRP - $26,400
EPA - 22/30
200 horsepower
151 lb-ft torque

2015 Mustang EcoBoost

MSRP - $26,400
EPA - 22/31
310 horsepower
320 lb-ft torque

Granted the weight difference will negate some of the horsepower/torque advantage, but I would still expect the 2015 EB to destroy the BRZ, especially in a straight line. And the weight makes the EB fuel mileage figures even more impressive, considering it beats the smaller, lighter, less powerful BRZ.

I got significantly better mileage in my BRZ than EPA. I averaged 31 in mixed driving, and that includes AutoX days, etc.

But yeah, the Stang is a better deal...granted the two cars are VERY different in their approach to everything, despite having similar core values (RWD, 2-door, 4 seats)

 

[Old 5 Oh]

I have to think they had an original plan to sell an EB mustang just above 24k and decided they could make more money by offering the V6 at that price, giving the EB more standard options, and increasing both the EB and GT prices as a result.

The problem with that logic is the GT is priced basically the same as 2014. Base is up a little but it's cheaper with a load of options.

I agree they bumped the EB price a little after they decided to keep the V6, but the EB was meant to be the base engine, for sure. It is the base everywhere but the US.

 

[ilkhan]

I got significantly better mileage in my BRZ than EPA. I averaged 31 in mixed driving, and that includes AutoX days, etc.

But yeah, the Stang is a better deal...granted the two cars are VERY different in their approach to everything, despite having similar core values (RWD, 2-door, 4 seats)

I like the comparison to the Genesis coupe. The Genesis is 2 grand more, with slightly more power, but loses 6/7/7 (city/highway/combined) compared to the EB. Thats a LOT of mileage difference for +38hp and -25torque.

The EB is a lot of mileage for a lot of power.

 

[GMAN6]

INTERIOR - Impressed

PRICE - Not impressed

LOOKS - Not impressed ( I think it's improved, but not impressively improved)

MPG's - Not impressed

Performance -..............................the last piece of the puzzle.

This will be the key issue to me. Seems it's coming down to the wire...lol
To me, the Mustang is a performance car. If I'm impressed by the performance, then it's a winner in my eyes. If I'm not impressed with the performance, then it will simply be unimpressive as a whole. Not a bad car, in fact, a great car for the price yet unimpressive for a complete redo. I don't mind if they sacrifice some MPG's for performance, in fact, I would prefer they sacrifice MPG's for performance as opposed to sacrificing performance for MPG's.

As to what will impress me: I believe it will be fine on a road course if it outdoes the Boss, so that only leaves strip and street. I think the EB will be OK on the street with the low down torque as well as the GT with the new intake that will improve low end torque.

So now, the last piece of the puzzle, what will impress me on the strip?
The GT will need to be a solid 12.5 car. Solid 12.5 meaning that many runs will be faster than 12.5. If it's a solid or 12.7 car that will be an improvement but it won't be like "WOW, impressive".
The EB will have to be a 12.6 car.

I won't be particularly disappointed if it doesn't achieve that level of performance but if not, I certainly won't be saying that it's an impressive car, I'll just be saying that I'm impressed with the interior on the new Mustang

 

[phil1336]

The problem with that logic is the GT is priced basically the same as 2014. Base is up a little but it's cheaper with a load of options.

I agree they bumped the EB price a little after they decided to keep the V6, but the EB was meant to be the base engine, for sure. It is the base everywhere but the US.

Ford bumped the price of the EB 2.3 a (little)? What do consider a little? How about $5.500 to $6.500 going from a Base V6 Convertible to a "Premium" EB 2.3 Convertible depending whether you choose the Manual or Automatic Transmission since you can`t get the EB. 2.3 Convertible in Base Trim! Oooops, I forgot, the discussion is limited to Fastback/Coupe Mustangs only, (not) Rag Tops.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

The EB will have to be a 12.6 car.

Please tell me this is a typo and you meant 13.6. Otherwise, you're going to be severely disappointed...due to outrageous expectations.

Sponsored